Gyroscopic Investing

fnord123 wrote: Nickel is bad stuff too - some studies show as much as 14.5% of some populations have bad reactions to it (cite: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/572961).  This is a much higher rate than that of people with deficiencies in processing iron.

So cast iron is safer than stainless steel!

Pointedstick wrote: So cast iron is safer than stainless steel!

Relatively.  I still won't use it.  1mg of iron is a lot to be bio-accumulating with all the damage it causes.

MachineGhost wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: So cast iron is safer than stainless steel!

Relatively.  I still won't use it.  1mg of iron is a lot to be bio-accumulating with all the damage it causes.

So what do you cook with? Only enameled cookware?

fnord123 wrote: Nickel is bad stuff too - some studies show as much as 14.5% of some populations have bad reactions to it (cite: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/572961).  This is a much higher rate than that of people with deficiencies in processing iron.

Sorry this is nickel applied topically ie to the skin, causing contact dermatitis i.e. nickel causing skin reactions.  This has no relevance to the topic at hand. WHy? because allergens are less likely to cause reaction when eaten, and if your gut had an allergic reaction you would know it.

Ingested nickel can cause the same reaction. I have an aunt who has precisely this problem. So yes,  this does have relevance to the tonic at hand.

1.  It is not valid science to use a study examining topic A to prove anything on topic B e.g.  a study of  SKIN reactions which happen commonly to topical nickel says nothiing about what happens to the body as a whole when you ingest the same substance, or how frequently it happens.

2.  That it happens (if your aunt really has a reaction to food cooked in stainless steel pans) at all is also not relevant i.e. a study of one person proves nothing.  The point of using the article as evidence was that reaction happen frequently so stainless steel is not safer than iron pans.  No one has presented data on how often there is a reaction to orally ingested nickel.  In addition, these kind of reactions produce symptoms, unlike absorbing iron which produce no symptoms, and if rhis kind of reaction happens in a person, they would notice it.  So for people who don't have any reaction to eating food cooked in stanless stell pans i.e. the vast majority of the population, the articel you posted is irrelevant to the safety of stainless steel pans.

Benko wrote: 1.  It is not valid science to use a study examining topic A to prove anything on topic B e.g.  a study of  SKIN reactions which happen commonly to topical nickel says nothiing about what happens to the body as a whole when you ingest the same substance, or how frequently it happens.

2.  That it happens (if your aunt really has a reaction to food cooked in stainless steel pans) at all is also not relevant i.e. a study of one person proves nothing.  The point of using the article as evidence was that reaction happen frequently so stainless steel is not safer than iron pans.  No one has presented data on how often there is a reaction to orally ingested nickel.  In addition, these kind of reactions produce symptoms, unlike absorbing iron which produce no symptoms, and if rhis kind of reaction happens in a person, they would notice it.  So for people who don't have any reaction to eating food cooked in stanless stell pans i.e. the vast majority of the population, the articel you posted is irrelevant to the safety of stainless steel pans.

1. There is plenty of literature on the topic of allergies that shows that allergies that normally manifest from touching something can also be triggered by ingestion.  Here's one that looks at nickel: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... 3958/ 

2. No one has presented data on how often there is a negative reaction to orally ingested iron by people with normal metabolism either.  In regards to your comment "they would notice it" - allergies are not binary where one either has zero reaction or a massive reaction plus some little indicator that lights up saying "that was from nickel!".  One can have low level allergic reactions that are either undiagnosed or misdiagnosed.  Furthermore, the "vast majority" of people who have cooked with cast iron have not had adverse reactions, so your own argument invalidates the hypothesis that I am under the impression you have been advancing - that cast iron is bad (or in any case, worse than stainless).

Semantics arguments aside, here's an article that shows that up to 60% of people with nickel allergies also reacted to nickel ingestion: http://flipper.diff.org/app/items/info/5325 (see the first graph in the "dietary nickel") section.

If we are going to trot out "valid science" type arguments, by my scorecard, there have been references posted showing normal iron ingestion does not appear to be a risk (see Machineghost's and PointedStick's posts on page one) along with a post that shows that quite a non-trivial part of the population may have bad reactions to ingested nickel.  Did I miss any "valid science" references you presented to the contrary, that show stainless is safer than cast iron?

1.

Benko wrote:   So for people who don't have any reaction to eating food cooked in stanless stell pans i.e. the vast majority of the population, the articel you posted is irrelevant to the safety of stainless steel pans.

2. "Nickel is a mineral. It is found in several foods including nuts, dried beans and peas, soybeans, grains, and chocolate."

Feel free to avoid them as well.

Benko wrote:"Nickel is a mineral. It is found in several foods including nuts, dried beans and peas, soybeans, grains, and chocolate."

Feel free to avoid them as well.

I think eating from cast iron pans is fine. I think for folks without nickel allergies, stainless is probably fine too.  I'm not the one advocating avoidance of cast iron with no scientific evidence to back me up.

Oh, btw, you are alive - so you must not be doing a very good job avoiding iron!

I can't find which thread they're in, but thank you for recommending those Lodge silicone scrapers for cast iron grills.
They are great!

If you have hemochromatosis, a disease where you develop too much iron in your blood, you have to watch your intake of dietary iron carefully. It's a serious illness, at one time my doctor thought I might have it, but it was ruled out. Excess iron is very toxic to the organs.

dualstow wrote: I can't find which thread they're in, but thank you for recommending those Lodge silicone scrapers for cast iron grills.
They are great!

Dualstow, do you have a link?  I don't remember the post and this sounds like a good tool.  Thanks.

... Mountaineer

Here you go, buddy: http://amzn.com/B0039UU9UO

I have a square grill pan by the same company, and these things are really good for cleaning between the ridges.

[quote=dualstow]I can't find which thread they're in, but thank you for recommending those Lodge silicone scrapers for cast iron grills.
They are great![/quote]

I think that was me!

These are pretty useful as well.

I think that was you, WAH. Thanks again.
I use the "Ove Glove" to hold stuff. It's just a heat resistant glove with the individual fingers, and is great for holding anything dry.
For splashy stuff, like pouring boiling pasta and water into a colander, I use a silicone mitt. Different brand, but looks like this:

http://amzn.com/B003V8AMDS

ochotona wrote: If you have hemochromatosis, a disease where you develop too much iron in your blood, you have to watch your intake of dietary iron carefully. It's a serious illness, at one time my doctor thought I might have it, but it was ruled out. Excess iron is very toxic to the organs.

What was your ferritin level?  Have you had your genome sequenced for SNPs?

They did a ferritin test, and concluded no hemochromatosis. I guess there are different forms of iron in the body, and different tests, and they had been misled by a high value of one of them, I don't recall which. No genetic testing.

MachineGhost wrote:

ochotona wrote: If you have hemochromatosis, a disease where you develop too much iron in your blood, you have to watch your intake of dietary iron carefully. It's a serious illness, at one time my doctor thought I might have it, but it was ruled out. Excess iron is very toxic to the organs.

What was your ferritin level?  Have you had your genome sequenced for SNPs?

ochotona wrote: They did a ferritin test, and concluded no hemochromatosis. I guess there are different forms of iron in the body, and different tests, and they had been misled by a high value of one of them, I don't recall which. No genetic testing.

Probably serum iron which is useless and it doesn't reflect the stores of iron as ferritin does.  I should have my own result in a couple of weeks.  My Gma's genome flagged her has having a SNP mutation for hematochromisis, although I don't know what her iron or ferritin levels are.  Come to think of it, maybe I should sign her up for MyQuest and get access to her labs -- if that's what her doc uses; he draws it onsite.

If you're Celtic, you're at higher risk for this disease.

ochotona wrote: If you have hemochromatosis, a disease where you develop too much iron in your blood, you have to watch your intake of dietary iron carefully. It's a serious illness, at one time my doctor thought I might have it, but it was ruled out. Excess iron is very toxic to the organs.

I read about this once, possibly in National Geographic. The author discovered he had it when he gave blood...and subsquently felt better than any day before in his entire life.